Gay Marriage Debate - London, AR

Discuss the national Gay Marriage debate in London, AR.

Do you support gay marriage?

London opposes
Oppose
 
57
Support
 
35

Vote now in London:

Comments (Page 3)

Showing posts 41 - 60 of73
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
David

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47
Sep 1, 2012
 
Come on America it's time to live in the 2012 not the 1812,
Bobby Pinn

Dallas, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#48
Sep 1, 2012
 
Buzzcut wrote:
<quoted text>
Jerry Sandusky agrees with you!
Coach Sandusky is not a homosexual, he's a child molester. Not sure why he's been brought into this conversation. He is married to a woman.
Bobby Pinn

Dallas, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#49
Sep 1, 2012
 
David wrote:
Come on America it's time to live in the 2012 not the 1812,
@ David, we're talking about Arkansas. They are not representative of the United States.
Buzzcut

Shrewsbury, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50
Sep 1, 2012
 
Bobby Pinn wrote:
<quoted text>Coach Sandusky is not a homosexual, he's a child molester. Not sure why he's been brought into this conversation. He is married to a woman.
Re read Post 41 Pinnhead!

According to Katie its all about love: age, sex, etc don't make a difference! No difference -- Gerry likes it all.
Buzzcut

Shrewsbury, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51
Sep 1, 2012
 
You don't understand what marriage is really about.
No one is stopping gays from sodomizing each other!
We are refusing to subsidize a relationship that has no need other than greed for subsidy.

Marriage is about a binding of unequals to ensure that the vulnerable natural products of a normal heterosexual marriage are protected as well as the vulnerable child bearer and society from irresponsible men.

Society is willing to bear some sacrifice to protect the vulnerable from the inherent inequality of this relationship and ensure that society does not pay excessive costs to repair the damage if the relationship falls apart. It makes the partners pay some cost to pick up the pieces.

There is no inherent inequality nor need to protect vulnerable children with a gay marriage. Gay marriage cannot produce children - it can only borrow those already created like a foster child relationship.

There is no need for families with children to subsidize frivolous gay love.
Lori

Plano, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#52
Sep 3, 2012
 
Baki wrote:
its against our nature and way of life. its a disease like cancer and can be easily cured if gay people accept the fact that its not normal
Really? And just bc u disagree with gay marriage than gay ppl aren't normal???

Since: Jun 12

Hemsworth, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#54
Nov 1, 2012
 
For some people eating bacon is a sin
For others being gay is a sin.
I'm not going to not eat bacon (I love that stuff)
Just that I'm not going to hate gay people.
Being bisexual myself I support gay/lesbian/transgender rights.
We love who we love,right?
Who's the one to tell us that you can't love one person because they're gay?
Show people respect
Support gay marriage.
Buzzcut

Worcester, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#55
Nov 1, 2012
 
Buzzcut wrote:
The only reason to burden the taxpayer with the cost of enforcing laws on marriage is because of the biological, economic, and psychological inequalities involved in marriage.
Marriage laws are for the protection of the more vulnerable women and children in the marriage relationship. They are there because society has an interest in protecting itself from the consequences of broken marriages and unsupported mothers and children.
Biologically, gay "relations" cannot naturally create children. Biologically there is NO inherent inequality in the homo/homo relationship, thus no need for protection.
This is just a scam for gay economic losers to try to rip off society in general (employers and the state) and gay winners in particular.
There is no need for it and gays should have the integrity and decency to NOT ASK FOR IT!
Everything they want can be created by legal documents as private contracts. Not only that but these congtracts can be unique for each relationship, rather than falsely imitating a heterosexual real marriage. Gays are FOOLS to allow the state to define their relationship when each "couple" could be free to self determine their own unique relationship.
But gay sellout losers would rather suck cash from societal benefits intended for others than live truly self determined lives!
And of course they want society to fund it!
Read the truth just above and weep losers! Your lame excuses for gay so called marriage just don't cut it.

You can sodomize each other all you want, but when you DEMAND I recognize it and subsidize it, I say HELL NO!

Since: Jul 11

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#56
Nov 15, 2012
 
Its sin gay marrige. If gay is eligable, why god create female? If lesbian eligable, why god created guy? Mail me, parvezctg90@gmail.com
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#57
Nov 15, 2012
 
Buzzcut wrote:
You don't understand what marriage is really about.
No one is stopping gays from sodomizing each other!
We are refusing to subsidize a relationship that has no need other than greed for subsidy.
Marriage is about a binding of unequals to ensure that the vulnerable natural products of a normal heterosexual marriage are protected as well as the vulnerable child bearer and society from irresponsible men.
Society is willing to bear some sacrifice to protect the vulnerable from the inherent inequality of this relationship and ensure that society does not pay excessive costs to repair the damage if the relationship falls apart. It makes the partners pay some cost to pick up the pieces.
There is no inherent inequality nor need to protect vulnerable children with a gay marriage. Gay marriage cannot produce children - it can only borrow those already created like a foster child relationship.
There is no need for families with children to subsidize frivolous gay love.
We are refusing to subsidize a relationship that has no need other than greed for subsidy.
"Marriage is about a binding of unequals to ensure that the vulnerable natural products of a normal heterosexual marriage are protected as well as the vulnerable child bearer and society from irresponsible men."

Nice speech... but binding unequal s... by that you mean?.... If it were to protect "children" wouldn't there be something to state that in the marital contract?... Tell me why a ssc do not need property protection like a osc get for saying I do?... Tell me why a osc are "unequal" that needs binding where as a ssc are not unequal?.....

"There is no inherent inequality nor need to " protect vulnerable children with a gay marriage. Gay marriage cannot produce children - it can only borrow those already created like a foster child relationship.
There is no need for families with children to subsidize frivolous gay"

Ah yes the "they can not have children naturally" argument (if you really want to call that straw man an argument)

1) Show me where in a standard marriage contract (license) there is a clause saying the marriage must produce children.
2) You say that "There is no inherent inequality" in todays day and age what "inherent inequality" are you speaking of?.... How is a osc inequal to each other, yet a ssc are equal to each other?....
3) You say "Gay marriage cannot produce children - it can only borrow those already created like a foster child relationship."
If you want to use that as the yardstick then are you prepared to deny marriage to
A) infertile couples
B) Couples where one if not both were "fixed" before marriage
C) post menopausal women

All three of these groups fall under the same umbrella you put the ssc under " marriage cannot produce children - it can only borrow those already created like a foster child relationship"

Oh news flash... ssc can, do and will continue to produce biolgical children. Not by "normal" methods, but by methods that will assure biological bond to at least one parent. If you say that is not good enough then you must take away any benefits (or at least cut them in half) to any couple bringing children into a marriage. Like the Brady bunch each group would only get half benifits as Mike and Carol "can only borrow those already created like a foster child relationship for their children" (mike the girls carol the boys)

Your "argument' falls flat on so many levels. The bottem line is why should two U.S. citizens be denied the right to enter into a binding contract which offers governmental benefits, both legal and monetary, while another pair of citizens are allowed to.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#58
Nov 15, 2012
 
Buzzcut wrote:
<quoted text>
Read the truth just above and weep losers! Your lame excuses for gay so called marriage just don't cut it.
You can sodomize each other all you want, but when you DEMAND I recognize it and subsidize it, I say HELL NO!
Hardly any of what you wrote before (responding to now) is the "truth"
Example
Everything they want can be created by legal documents as private contracts. Not only that but these congtracts can be unique for each relationship, rather than falsely imitating a heterosexual real marriage. Gays are FOOLS to allow the state to define their relationship when each "couple" could be free to self determine their own unique relationship."

A) Why should a ssc have to pay the extra time money and effort to get the same "rights" that a osc couple has 5 minutes into the marriage?
B) these legal documents you claim make them "equal" are up to court interpretation. A hospital can require a member of an ssc show documents in order to see their partner. If you are married no documents would be required.
C) Tell me how one goes about getting legal documents that give the right not to be forced to testify against your spouse?... That is but one legal benefits that there is NO equal to given for a ssc.

Face it requireing a certain group to jump through hoops to get the same rights as another goes smack dab against the constitution.

Since: Jul 11

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59
Nov 17, 2012
 
Its sin. Fake laws.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60
Nov 18, 2012
 
Parvezctg90 wrote:
Its sin. Fake laws.
Heres the deal... Lots of things that are legal are sins....but you know what.... IT DOES NOT MATTER BECAUSE WE ARE NOT A THEOCRACY. What your little book tells you is a sin does not matter when it comes to the law and t he constitution.
Buzzcut

Worcester, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62
Nov 18, 2012
 
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
We are refusing to subsidize a relationship that has no need other than greed for subsidy.
"Marriage is about a binding of unequals to ensure that the vulnerable natural products of a normal heterosexual marriage are protected as well as the vulnerable child bearer and society from irresponsible men."
Nice speech... but binding unequal s... by that you mean?.... If it were to protect "children" wouldn't there be something to state that in the marital contract?... Tell me why a ssc do not need property protection like a osc get for saying I do?... Tell me why a osc are "unequal" that needs binding where as a ssc are not unequal?.....
"There is no inherent inequality nor need to " protect vulnerable children with a gay marriage. Gay marriage cannot produce children - it can only borrow those already created like a foster child relationship.
There is no need for families with children to subsidize frivolous gay"
Ah yes the "they can not have children naturally" argument (if you really want to call that straw man an argument)
1) Show me where in a standard marriage contract (license) there is a clause saying the marriage must produce children.
2) You say that "There is no inherent inequality" in todays day and age what "inherent inequality" are you speaking of?.... How is a osc inequal to each other, yet a ssc are equal to each other?....
3) You say "Gay marriage cannot produce children - it can only borrow those already created like a foster child relationship."
If you want to use that as the yardstick then are you prepared to deny marriage to
A) infertile couples
B) Couples where one if not both were "fixed" before marriage
C) post menopausal women
All three of these groups fall under the same umbrella you put the ssc under " marriage cannot produce children - it can only borrow those already created like a foster child relationship"
Oh news flash... ssc can, do and will continue to produce biolgical children. Not by "normal" methods, but by methods that will assure biological bond to at least one parent. If you say that is not good enough then you must take away any benefits (or at least cut them in half) to any couple bringing children into a marriage. Like the Brady bunch each group would only get half benifits as Mike and Carol "can only borrow those already created like a foster child relationship for their children" (mike the girls carol the boys)
Your "argument' falls flat on so many levels. The bottem line is why should two U.S. citizens be denied the right to enter into a binding contract which offers governmental benefits, both legal and monetary, while another pair of citizens are allowed to.
Society gets involved in marriage to protect the vulnerable in a biologically and historically valid arrangement.
Since gays are inherently equal, there is no need for society to get involved on the basis of vulnerability and natural inequality.
Since there are no natural children with this kind of relationship there is no natural vulnerability of children. You are trying to artificially create such an unnatural arrangement to create a justification for your cause and we see through the falsehood.

Then out of sour grapes you assert that a natural heterosexual marriage is invalid if the couple cannot have children and thus marriage should be denied those people. What a dog in the manger you are! Only God knows for sure what the child outcome of a marriage would be. You are being specious.

I think the real bottom line is exactly what I stated and you echoed at the end "denied the right to enter into a binding contract that OFFERS GOVERNMENT BENEFITS". That says it all and shows you for the freeloader you want to become!
Buzzcut

Worcester, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#63
Nov 18, 2012
 
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
Hardly any of what you wrote before (responding to now) is the "truth"
Example
Everything they want can be created by legal documents as private contracts. Not only that but these congtracts can be unique for each relationship, rather than falsely imitating a heterosexual real marriage. Gays are FOOLS to allow the state to define their relationship when each "couple" could be free to self determine their own unique relationship."
A) Why should a ssc have to pay the extra time money and effort to get the same "rights" that a osc couple has 5 minutes into the marriage?
B) these legal documents you claim make them "equal" are up to court interpretation. A hospital can require a member of an ssc show documents in order to see their partner. If you are married no documents would be required.
C) Tell me how one goes about getting legal documents that give the right not to be forced to testify against your spouse?... That is but one legal benefits that there is NO equal to given for a ssc.
Face it requireing a certain group to jump through hoops to get the same rights as another goes smack dab against the constitution.
The answer to all those is that it is NOT a real marriage but an attempt to emulate one by bad analogy.

Like you said in A, it is all about money and being cheap for you.

If you really want to support such arrangements then you should also be in favor of polygamy as why should those folks be denied similar rights. After all polygamy has a more valid historical track record than gay marriage and while looked down upon it does rise to the level of "an abomination being raised to a sacrament". If you do allow so called gay marriage you may upset the ratio of available women to men as men and women may not go gay at the same rate. Thus you need to allow polygamy just to prevent the ratio to be upset. Again polygamy is only a point along the slope, gay so called marriage is at the bottom.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64
Nov 18, 2012
 
Buzzcut wrote:
<quoted text>
Society gets involved in marriage to protect the vulnerable in a biologically and historically valid arrangement.
Since gays are inherently equal, there is no need for society to get involved on the basis of vulnerability and natural inequality.
Since there are no natural children with this kind of relationship there is no natural vulnerability of children. You are trying to artificially create such an unnatural arrangement to create a justification for your cause and we see through the falsehood.
Then out of sour grapes you assert that a natural heterosexual marriage is invalid if the couple cannot have children and thus marriage should be denied those people. What a dog in the manger you are! Only God knows for sure what the child outcome of a marriage would be. You are being specious.
I think the real bottom line is exactly what I stated and you echoed at the end "denied the right to enter into a binding contract that OFFERS GOVERNMENT BENEFITS". That says it all and shows you for the freeloader you want to become!
"Society gets involved in marriage to protect the vulnerable in a biologically and historically valid arrangement."

I asked this before and you did not answer ( I think we all know why). Exactly who is "vulnerable" in today's day and age?....

"Since gays are inherently equal, there is no need for society to get involved on the basis of vulnerability and natural inequality."

Once again with the inequality equality b.s. Who is the inequal part of the equation?.... The women?... then ssm should be ok for lesbians because they are women thus inequal..... The children... well since ssc have had, do have, and will continue to have children... the marriage rights should go to them also... So say what you mean. EXACTLY WHO IS THE INEQUAL .

"Since there are no natural children with this kind of relationship there is no natural vulnerability of children. You are trying to artificially create such an unnatural arrangement to create a justification for your cause and we see through the falsehood."

So back to the children....
A) Show me where producing children is a prerequisite for marriage and the government granted benefits that go along with it.
B) you say "natural children".... so will you take away benefits from infertile couples... no natural children can come from that. What about blended families.. there top only one parent is "natural"... or those who adopt... their children are even less "natural" than those of ssc who got the way of artificial insemination. So if you are willing to take away the benefits from these groups you may have an argument...

"hen out of sour grapes you assert that a natural heterosexual marriage is invalid if the couple cannot have children and thus marriage should be denied those people. What a dog in the manger you are! Only God knows for sure what the child outcome of a marriage would be. You are being specious."

Not being specious at all... YOU are the one stuck on the child issue. YOU are the one saying that since a ssc can not have children they should not enjoy the government given benefits of marriage. Well infertile people can not have children... can they. So going by YOUR logic... they are no different than the ssc in that resepect therefore should not get benefits. Now if you want to give them benefits then tell me how that passes the 14th amendment.

" think the real bottom line is exactly what I stated and you echoed at the end "denied the right to enter into a binding contract that OFFERS GOVERNMENT BENEFITS". That says it all and shows you for the freeloader you want to become"

let me get this straight... they (the ssc) wants the same thing the government gives an osc so they are freeloaders?... Were the blacks freeloaders?... how about women... or minorities in general....

There is no reason to deny the rights given to one group to another bottom line.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65
Nov 18, 2012
 
Buzzcut wrote:
<quoted text>
The answer to all those is that it is NOT a real marriage but an attempt to emulate one by bad analogy.
Like you said in A, it is all about money and being cheap for you.
If you really want to support such arrangements then you should also be in favor of polygamy as why should those folks be denied similar rights. After all polygamy has a more valid historical track record than gay marriage and while looked down upon it does rise to the level of "an abomination being raised to a sacrament". If you do allow so called gay marriage you may upset the ratio of available women to men as men and women may not go gay at the same rate. Thus you need to allow polygamy just to prevent the ratio to be upset. Again polygamy is only a point along the slope, gay so called marriage is at the bottom.
"The answer to all those is that it is NOT a real marriage but an attempt to emulate one by bad analogy."

Gee, not a "real" marriage.... lets see a "real" marriage is when two parties sign a legally binding contract in which the government grants them certain benefits both legal and monetary. So how is this not a "real" marriage.

"Like you said in A, it is all about money and being cheap for you.
If you really want to support such arrangements then you should also be in favor of polygamy as why should those folks be denied similar rights. After all polygamy has a more valid historical track record than gay marriage and while looked down upon it does rise to the level of "an abomination being raised to a sacrament"

First I didn't say it was all about money. There are MANY non monetary benefits offered by the government which only married couples can get which can not be semi equal via legal documents.

Secondly... polygamy. Here is the deal. In order to deny rights given to one group of citizens to another the state must show a compelling states interest in denying the rights. Those state interests can be shown in polygamy. What is the states interest in denying ssm?.....

"while looked down upon it does rise to the level of "an abomination being raised to a sacrament"

Hate to tell you this... legally speaking marriage is NOT a sacrament. If it were then non christians could not be married (how can a hindu marry under a "christian sacrement"?) Atheist could not marry.(sacrements are church related which atheists do not believe in). So the whole sacrement thing... legally speaking is hog wash.

" If you do allow so called gay marriage you may upset the ratio of available women to men as men and women may not go gay at the same rate. Thus you need to allow polygamy just to prevent the ratio to be upset. Again polygamy is only a point along the slope, gay so called marriage is at the bottom."

Let me be the first of many to say WHAT the heck are you talking about?. It will upset the available women to men as men to women?... So you are saying that IF ssm were allowed less men would be available for women.... news flash... the homosexual men getting married are already out of the game. Like wise the homosexual women getting married are already of of the game. There would be no more or less participants in the osc pool than there already are. Unless you are trying to say that when (not if but when) ssm becomes law of the land, hetero men and women will say.. gee now than I can marry my own sex.. I will become attracted to them and marry them thus thining the heard of single heteros..... Please.
Mr william george

Europe

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#66
Nov 21, 2012
 
If u are intrested in marriage call me and i have some group dat can help u get one call +23407061137112
touching another heart

Apo, AE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70
Sep 25, 2013
 
In our deepest moments of struggle, frustration, fear, and confusion, we are being called upon to reach in and touch our hearts. Then, we will know what to do, what to say, how to be. What is right is always in our deepest heart of hearts. It is from the deepest part of our hearts that we are capable of reaching out and touching another human being. It is, after all, one heart touching another heart. Jason.ilustre@yahoo.com

Since: Sep 13

Europe

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#71
Sep 26, 2013
 
A GREAT SPELL CASTER (DR.OBASELA KING) THAT HELP ME BRING BACK MY EX GIRL FRIEND BACK TO ME.
Am so happy to testify about a great spell caster that helped me when all hope was lost for me to unite with my ex girl friend that I love so much. Am from LONDON and my name is Joshua , I had a girl friend that love me so much but something terrible happen to our relationship one afternoon when her girl friend that was always trying to get to me was trying to force me to make love to her just because she was been jealous of her friend that I was dating and on the scene my girl friend just walk in and she thought we had something special doing together, I tried to explain things to her that her friend always do this when ever she is not with me and I always refuse her but I never told her because I did not want the both of them to be enemies to each other but she never believed me. She broke up with me and I tried times with out numbers to make her believe me but she never believed me until one day I heard about the GREAT DR.obasela king. and I emailed him with his and he replied me so kindly and help me get back my lovely relationship that was already gone for two months. Am so happy and all thanks to the GREAT DR. obasela king that help me with his white love powers. If you have any kind of problem email him now for help with his email obaseladkingcaster@gmail.com.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 41 - 60 of73
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

London Jobs

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]